1. Why did they enlarge the ends of the crosses in early time from the time of Constantine, since we see coins with such cross? Thanks in advance. [Amazing colorful mosaics at the basilica of Almyrida, of the early byzantine era (6th century bC), in Apokoronas, Crete, Greece.](https://www.alamy.com/amazing-colorful-mosaics-at-the-basilica-of-almyrida-of-the-early-byzantine-era-6th-century-bc-in-apokoronas-crete-greece-image568479165.html) [Croix Christianisme (Wikipedia)](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croix_(christianisme)) [The Christogram in the mosaic may look like a cross, but it's actually more like a "chi rho" symbol, which puts together the first two captial letters in the Greek word for Christ.](https://www.livescience.com/42761-ancient-church-mosaics-uncovered-israel.html) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/see-the-greek-biblical-inscription-embedded-in-an-ancient-mosaic-floor-discovered-in-israel-180985849/ https://wowcappadocia.com/aidesim-mosaic-basilica.html https://www.dailysabah.com/history/2017/03/03/1600-year-old-byzantine-mosaics-in-kilis-to-attract-tourists [A Church Beyond Compare - The Nea Church, or the Basilica of Saint Mary the New in Jerusalem (543-614)](https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2017/11/a-church-beyond-compare-nea-church-or.html) https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/constantine/t.html I mean this - the enlarged ends of the crosses. It looks like the ankh and the equal sided cross from the near east have enlarged ends, not exactly sure why, there is similarity. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/353884483203978736/ https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/constantine/t.html How can there be sol invictus with Christian cross? [Ancient Numismatic Coins](http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.7.tic.45?lang=hu)

Are there ancient writers that mentions halos / nimbus - from 1-8 century? 1. How was the halo adopted in the church? And what is its historicity? 2. I read from some sources that in the beginning it was reserved only for the Lord but in later time it was depicted on saints. 3. Did anyone wrote anything about it? Thanks in advance. ........................................................................... **UPDATE** I found only this - > “Marcus Servius Honoratus, a Roman grammarian of the late 4th century, > in his commentary on Virgil's works defines the Nimbus as a "divine > cloud" ("nimbo effulgens: nube divina, est enim fulgidum lumen quo > deorum capita cinguntur. Sic etiam pingi solet" - Servianorum in > Vergilii Carmina commentariorum / Ed. E. K. Rand. Lancaster, 1946. > Vol. 2. P. 471). The Latin theologian Isidore of Seville in his > Etymologies mentioned the Nimbus as a radiance around the heads of > angels (Isid. Hisp. Etymol. XIX 32. 2).” https://www.pravenc.ru/text/2577657.html Are there maybe church fathers that talk about it or other persons besides from Marcus Servius Honoratus and Isidore of Seville?

One of the objections to the Catholic and Orthodox churches is that they use statues/icons as part of worship. (These objects are within churches, believers tend to have a few, etc) > John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter 11, "Impiety of Attributing a Visible Form to God—The Setting Up of Idols a Defection from the True God." But if you go to a reformed church, they have stained glass windows, depicting people or biblical events. It is even possible and likely that a picture book Bible could be there. ### So what exactly is the difference from the reformed protestant position? #### The "Epiphany" Window in the United Reformed Church in Somersville NJ See here for details. // *Side note, I do not understand why they call this the Epiphany window... it looks like the Nativity to me.* ### Mosaic Icon of the Theophany in the Monastery of Osios Lukas ### My old church First Presbyterian Church of Pittsburgh, above the massive organ pipes. Seriously, I crawled around up there... it's huge. This building was finished by them in 1905, and they claim their roots go back to 1758 on their website. ### Every Orthodox Church has this Icon of Jesus Pantocrator on the ceiling. This one is in St. Petersburg in a Russian Orthodox Church. ### St. Giles Cathedral - The Cradle of Presbyterianism in Scotland. The North Transept Window - Jesus Walking on the Sea ### Orthodox Icon of Jesus walking on the Sea, (from the website of the Orthodox church of Osaka )

### Context The Assyrian Church of the East is the last remaining branch of the Churches of the East (historically known as Nestorians, though they themselves reject that epithet). The Churches of the East split from the Churches of the West (which subsequently branched into Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestants) in 431 over the Council of Ephesus and specifically the issue of whether the Virgin Mary should be called *theotokos* (God-bearer) or not. Thus, they were not represented at any of the subsequent ecumenical councils. The veneration of icons is allowed by the Assyrian Church of the East (their theology may even encourage it), but they have not actually used icons in worship for a very long time. The FAQ of the Australian archdiocese of the ACotE says: > Icons are holy images. Man is the image of God, in as much as He was fashioned after God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). As the perfect revelation of God, Jesus is the image and reflection of his Father who is unseen (John 14:8-9). In baptism, we are ‘re-created’ in the image of the Son, whom bear by means of the sacrament. The saints are images of whom we strive to become, by the grace of Christ, after having being perfected in faith. There are liturgical and canonical prescriptions which indicate the use of icons in the tradition of the Assyrian Church of the East. However, **they have fallen out of use for many centuries,** and have only remained in some Gospel lectionaries. [emph. added] Similarly, Reverend Tower Andrious mentions that Assyrian Christians might "think it sound[s] normal and true" that their church does not use icons "because they did not see Icons in their churches" (*Icons in the Church of the East *). In the West, the issue of icon veneration was the primary controversy resolved at Nicaea II (787), which, of course, had no representation from CotE. This council is accepted as authoritative by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. The decisions of Nicaea II appear to mandate the use of icons, as they declared: > We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honorable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. and in another place: > Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. These statements are interpreted by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches as mandating that churches be adorned with icons and that believers ought to venerate them. I am not sure that they could be interpreted otherwise. ### My question **Given that the Assyrian Church of the East does not currently use icons, despite expressly permitting their veneration, would it be considered heretical on that basis by the churches who follow the authority of Nicaea II?** To be clear, I am not asking if they would be considered heretical on other grounds, but solely on their attitude towards icons. One might put the question more abstractly: If a hypothetical church were in total agreement with the Catholics or EO on all points of doctrine but did not actually have icons in their church building nor venerate them in private, would it be considered heretical by the Catholics or EO, respectively? If the answer would be different between Catholics and EO, then I'm interested in hearing both perspectives.

Susanna 1:32 states that part of her piety was covering her face, and that the elders wanted to uncover her. Why is she not depicted that way in Iconography? (At least in the iconography I can find)

Has any Church Father compared the priest, deacon, and subdeacon in a Solemn High Mass to the Three Divine Persons of the Trinity? Solemn High Mass with the priest, deacon, and subdeacon at the altar:

I am looking for the name of the cathedral that contains the following mural. What I know for sure is: - That it has been done between 2004 and 2008, more likely in 2008. - It was made in a Catholic cathedral of a Spanish speaking country. - The original file name is "2B CS.jpg" What I think I know is: - It was a city in Latin America. - The city is on or near the seashore.

And do you have any examples of frescoes of Christ with a beard?

Why is it common in many Orthodox icons that Jesus Christ and the saints are represented making mudras? For example:

I am trying to determine what language the letters around Christ's head in the Mandylion Icon are written in and what they are equivalent to in English. I think in the Icon above, they are ancient Greek and say "I AM", but can't seem to verify this. Thanks in advance.. God Bless.

I am orthodox christian and on my walls I have icons of Jesus and Saints. But theese days I thought of the stature Christ the Redeemer from Brazil, Rio de Janeiro and I remembered some words from a book about prophet Elijah. Those aren't the words of Elijah from the Bible, but they refer to the ministry of Elijah: "They(Phoenicians and Corrupted Israelits) take a stone and chisel it in the form of a god, but at the end of the day it is just a rock. It has a mouth, but doesn't speak, it has eyes, but can't see. Those are the idols they prefer over the invisible allmightly God". This is not the exact quote from that book, because I read it in my language and I tried to translate the quote. Now I accept answers from both traditional and reformed christians who accept/deny icons and statues. My question is if you think that Christ the Reedemer is an idol, a stone with face as described by Elijah(in the book I read, not in the Bible) what are your arguments, or if you believe statues and icons aren't idols and are an accepted form of worshipping God and what are your arguments.

There are much simpler ways to frame this question, but for dramatic effect, consider the [Adoration of the Mystic Lamb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghent_Altarpiece) which was finished in 1432 and the [Qunisext Council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinisext_Council) . In the roughly 700 years separating these two events, much changed in terms of the Church's institutional setup, including the Great Schism. The early ecumenical councils laid out detailed doctrines to govern the appropriate depiction of Christ in visual media. Among the most well-known from the Quinisext Council is canon 82, which bars artists and court artisans from depicting Christ as a lamb, and further asserts that the only canonical representation of Christ is the human form. Essentially, this canon had came about from the ongoing debates on Christology at the time -- whereby the church fathers took the side of a dual-nature. Of course, that Christ did have a human nature was critical for the soteriological function of his blood and sacrifice. Thus, if we were to cherry-pick the Adoration of the Mystic Lamb, then, clearly it would be incompliant with this canon, as the lower panel depicts just such a lamb. Though there is reason to think that the artist was not unaware of the legacy perspectives around this category of iconography: the lamb has a human-like face and explicitly depicts the lamb as having stigmata, with blood flowing into a chalice.

Question

The Catholic and Protestant theological view on the proposon having a human aspect remains consistent with the stance of Fathers of the Quinisext Council, however, in the following centuries, strictures around lamb iconography has loosened, why is this likely the case and what if anything replaced the canons on iconography laid out in the Quinisext Council?

The question is as simple as the title. I am simply wondering, ‘When is the earliest recorded date of this tradition?’

> No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18) QUESTION: **Is there anything in Catholic doctrine which prohibits or restricts displaying an image in the "likeness" of God the Father?** *Remark:* I ask, because I seem to be coming across more and more such images. Yet, I thought that such was not permissible. Consider, for example, the Name of God for the Israelites (abbrev., *The Tetragrammaton*), then replaced by LORD (in smallcaps). Finally, somewhat recently, I thought that the Catholic Church had forbidden the pronunciation of the HOLY NAME alluded to, thus producing a change to some of the Catholic hymns to reflect this.

Is there any archeological or written evidence for image veneration in the first few centuries especially in the ante Nicene period outside the Rome? *Related - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91037/58919*

Hello I would like help to identify this icon photograph. It is Greek Orthodox icon with a man holding a cross.

I have seen icons of St. Christopher (Αγιος Χριστοφορος) with a Dog-Head and wanting to know officially if somewhere the Orthodox they see this as canon. It's something that has come up multiple times in orthodox groups where I am discussing icons. I understand why the icon may depict him this way as it's explained in many places, but my question is rather if the Orthodox church or church leaders recognizes that depiction as canon for his icons. On the OrthodoxWiki page for this is says the following: > ....There are some rare icons that depict this martyr with the head of a dog. Such images may carry echoes of the Egyptian dog-headed god, Anubius; and Christopher pictured with a dog's head, is *not generally supported* by the Orthodox Church. However, these images have made him especially popular among the Roman Catholics who have created many stories to explain his "cynocephalatic" appearance. [citation needed] But of course there isn't really a citation. Since it says not generally supported it doesn't really explain.

I got this icon from Greece, however I was not able to identify the Saint. Could anyone help?

The fourth council of Constantinople , held in 869-870 under Pope Hadrian II, is recognized as an official ecumenical council by the Roman Catholic Church (according to Catholic.com). The EWTN website has this to say regarding the infallibility of teachings promulgated by ecumenical councils: > Whenever the Pope alone or the bishops in union with the Pope exercise their divinely appointed office to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the whole Church, the teaching is infallible. The **most solemn expression** of this teaching authority would be an **ecumenical council** (which by definition would include and be in union with the Pope). Therefore, all the solemn **teachings on faith and morals promulgated by the ecumenical councils are infallible**. This council, therefore, infallibly affirms the following canons: Canon 1 > If we wish to proceed without offence along the true and royal road of divine justice, **we must keep the declarations and teachings of the holy fathers as if they were so many lamps** which are always alight and illuminating our steps which are directed towards God. **Therefore, considering and esteeming these as a second word of God**, in accordance with the great and most wise Denis, let us sing most willingly along with the divinely inspired David, The commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes, and, Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths; and with the author of Proverbs we say, Your commandment is a lamp and your law a light, and like Isaiah we cry to the lord God with loud voice, because your commands are a light for the earth. For the exhortations and warnings of the divine canons are rightly likened to light inasmuch as the better is distinguished from the worse and what is advantageous and useful is distinguished from what is not helpful but harmful. This Canon goes on to proclaim that all preceding and forthcoming Canons are to be esteemed and obeyed as a second word of God *thus elevating tradition to equal footing with Holy Scripture*. Canon 3 > **We decree that the sacred image of our lord Jesus Christ, the redeemer and saviour of all people, should be venerated with honour equal to that given to the book of the holy gospels.** For, just as through the written words which are contained in the book, we all shall obtain salvation, so through the influence that colours in painting exercise on the imagination, all, both wise and simple, obtain benefit from what is before them; for as speech teaches and portrays through syllables, so too does painting by means of colours. **It is only right then**, in accordance with true reason and very ancient tradition, that icons should be honoured and venerated in a derivative way because of the honour which is given to their archetypes, **and it should be equal to that given to the sacred book of the holy gospels** and the representation of the precious cross. This Canon goes on to include all iconic representations of Mary, angels, apostles, prophets, martyrs and holy men as well as those of all the saints. Additionally, this Canon pronounces anathema for all who are not inclined to so venerate icons: > Let those who are not so disposed be anathema from the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit. * Anathema - 1) something or someone that one vehemently dislikes; 2) a formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine. So, there is a Catholic Canon, which is to be esteemed as equal in authority to the Gospels themselves (according to another Canon) and which is described as an infallible teaching to the whole Church regarding faith and morals, which *infallibly pronounces anathema upon anyone who does not venerate icons with an honor equal to that given to the Gospels themselves*. 1) Do individual Catholics actually venerate icons with honor equal to that of the Gospels? 2) Do those who do not consider icons and the Gospels equally honorable realize they have been pronounced separated from the Trinity by the 4th Council of Constantinople or has this particular Canon been cancelled?

In many renditions of the **Acheiropoieta**, three letters are present in the halo around Christ's face: **omega, omicron, eta**. (This is the usual clockwise, left-to-right order; but in other versions the same letters are present in the order omicron, omega, eta.) **What is the meaning of these letters?** I heard **in a tour of a Greek Orthodox church ** that the letters refer to **God's revelation of his name in Exodus 3**. However, the crucial words in the Septuagint - the historic Greek-language version of the Old Testament - are ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν ("I am who I am"). None of these words includes the letter eta. Is it that case that the three letters are actually omicron, omega, **nu** - which is to say that they spell out ὁ ὤν ("the one who is")?